Final answer:
The main counter-argument against the heliocentric model was the lack of empirical proof and the reliance on human thought and divine revelation as the only paths to truth. Religious resistance from the Catholic Church and observational limitations due to the Earth's movements also presented major challenges.
Step-by-step explanation:
A powerful counter-argument against the renaissance heliocentric model of the solar system was that there was no empirical proof of it. This model, proposed by Copernicus, suggested that the Earth and other planets revolve around the Sun. However, in Copernicus's time, few thought it could be proven whether the heliocentric or the older geocentric system was correct. Aristotle's reasoning that heavier objects must fall to Earth faster than lighter ones was considered more convincing, despite it being absolutely incorrect.
Additionally, religious resistance also posed a major challenge. The Catholic Church held that pure human thought combined with divine revelation was the path to truth, making nature, as revealed by our senses, suspect. This opposition was evident when Galileo adopted the heliocentric hypothesis and faced rejection from Church authorities.
Ultimately, the inability of scientists of the Renaissance to observe the positions of all the other planets independently of our own moving planet complicated the acceptance of the heliocentric model. They had difficulty deducing the nature of all planetary motion using only their earthbound observations of the other planets' positions in the sky.
Learn more about Heliocentric Model